Replies

Of course it wasn't, the opacity did not resolve into volume. What I said was, all things being equal, lower density resolves into opacity; but within VSL, not necessarily into volume. You seemed to acknowledge later the sun does not bloat like the caricature.

No. No, no, no, no, no.

I acknowledged you obviously can't go there. You obviously do not intend to explain why you don't end up there. To the extent you are blocking the excess energy with opacity, you go there. To the extent you don't, you don't go there. You are claiming to not go there.

Basically, you are claiming to not have the problem posed by a swelling Sun OR by having the energy escape. You blandly restate and wait for applause. This performance is unconvincing. You either have one problem or the other or some blend of both.

Of course, and as c gradually changes everything stays in equilibrium. The Stellar History link above suggests the excess energy is partly retained as internal radiation pressure, and partly dissipated by convection and other transfer into heat and kinetic energy.

All real-world stars are at an equilibrium. You say a Setterfieldian early Sun is at an equilibrium, but go on to say things that flatly contradict this. The fusion process is going to produce new energy. If all of the new energy does not escape, the internal temperature is rising rising rising rising rising. You are describing a star whose energy is not finding its way out and whose internal energy content must be continually increasing, a star which is not at equilibrium. This is smoke, mirrors, slight of hand, bland restatement without explanation.

I think you mean, increased opacity with VSL permits more and redder photons (because opacity doesn't "make" photons). Of course it does, my point was that opacity means fewer photons are getting out in balance with more being generated.

The effect of opacity in the real world is to absorb photons, create kinetic energy, and re-emit some number longer-wave photons of lower total energy. What it's supposed to be doing in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land I'm still trying to guess.

Of course, because the atoms fused have increased velocity and thus the same formation energy, so naturally produce photons with similar energy.

This almost looks plausible on first blush. The entropic Zero-Point-Energy thing makes the little protons fly together 11 million times faster which amounts to an energy proportional to the lost mass of the nucleons. The kinetic energy formula is

KE = (1/2)mv².

The velocity term is indeed squared. Thus, the energy of the fusion event FROM fusion has gone down by the square of the delta c, but the kinetic energy of the collision has risen with the square of the delta c, so we aren't so much generating fusion energy (which has become insignificant) as tapping into the fabulous vacuum energy to give the resultant photons a wavelength which allows Adam's eyes to see.

But if this is what's happening, the fusion products, having lost more kinetic energy than anything else, would have much lower kinetic energy than those furiously flying input photons. They don't. That fabulous vacuum energy is STILL there and everything is STILL flying at incredible speeds compared to now. The energy surplus of the reaction is still free and unaccounted for.

Am I putting words in your mouth? I think that has to be what you will say.

If the kinetic energy is indeed lost, the next fusion steps don't happen. Solar fusion does not stop when two protons make a deuterium nucleus, or when you get to lithium, or when you get to carbon. It stops at iron. If the Sun were powered by the kinetic energy of its particle collisions, you would be back to the kind of models people were using before nuclear energy was discovered. That it continues to shine without showing any sign of cooling off becomes a great mystery.

I've already explained your balancing act. The fusion process has become insinificant with the incredible mass shrinkage. You're now using the kinetic energy of the particles to account for the energy of the output photons. That's a whole different engine and it won't work the same. It runs down very fast.

When you fuse two protons to make deuterium, only a tiny fraction of the input mass is gone. The rest is still there, the fuel for later reactions. This engine runs down very slowly, then, because it runs on a mass which is depleted very slowly. A little bit of mass will make a whole lot of energetic photons.

In claiming that the kinetic energy is your lost deficit, you are using it all up in the first bang. You need it all to do what you claim. There's none left. You bang two protons together at high speeds and have a deuterium just sitting there. It won't really do that, but that's what you are claiming. The cooling of the furnace is instantaneous.

Perhaps now you're saying, "Wait! Up the thread, he was saying the star gets hotter and hotter and hotter. Now he's talking out of the other side of his mouth."

Can you use the opacity heat trap to recycle some of the lost energy to keep the reactants hot? No. It's the same as saying the collision doesn't use all the kinetic energy in the first place.

The conundrum is still the same as I had five years ago. If you burn the nuclear fuel THAT fast, make that many MORE photons, you have to either redshift the photons or not. There is no way to turn that into a world that looks like ours.

Furthermore, if Setterfield is really doing what you say he's doing, all atomic/molecular collisions on Earth are releasing fantastically high energy photons compared to what we see from such collisions today. The friction of sliding your butt across the chair generates a flash you could take a photo with. This is not exactly everything looking the same in a high-c universe.

What you are trying to do is what the ZPE hucksters on the web try to do, turn an entropic energy into concentrated, work-doing energy. This is amusing. Sometimes, at their convenience, creationists know the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (Although the version they know typically bears no relation to the one physics knows.) At times like this, the Second Law goes by the wayside in their calculations.

What you're trying to do, you can't do. WHATEVER the ZPE is, you can't tap into it. You not only can't tap into it to power your car or your house, you can't tap into it to make the Sun shine bluer. TANSTAAFL.

Supposedly, even after all the losses, the ZPE is still large today. We can't tap into it today. It's entropy. It's background. It's perfectly dissipated. If it's there, it won't concentrate itself for you and do work. Why should we believe it happened back then?

This is the psychology test you keep flunking. There's a big divide by zero step in every presentation you make. It's easy to catch, the work of a minute or two of thought. Yet you so earnestly don't see and come back a day or two later STILL pretending not to see.

You've been on this thread for some time now. We're many, many pages down the road. You swept in grandiosely announcing that Setterfield has recieved many critical validations in the technical journal works of Dolphin, Norman ... Missler ... and the guys who wrote about funny momentum changes in space probes. You've been floating grandly over various objections since then. How do you think this is playing out there?

The objections I have are so big, so fundamental, it's like you have no legs, but you're pretending to float in space. This is so obviously not science, and you're swearing it is.

One answer to how it's playing out there is that between us we've basically killed this thread. There used to be lots of people on it and now it's just us. You have to be into either abnormal psychology or amateur fantasy physics to care about what's happening here.

The historical data point argument isn't really my thing. There may be some bias toward high numbers early if you just look at the reported values, but the error bars in those measurements are really crazy. In short, the Ichneumon post still works for me.

This is all I have time for just now. I'll be back later to go over your other posts.